Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Does Wikipedia have a left-leaning bias?

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I'm interested in knowing whether Wikipedia inadvertently has a particular bias. I know that everything has to be written in a neutral point of view and is not supposed to take sides on anything. I found the article on this topic here, Ideological bias on Wikipedia, but I found the article too confusing. I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias which may contribute to its bias since almost all of Wikipedia's info comes from mainstream media. I am hoping that I can get a quick summary on whether Wikipedia has a bias or not or if it leans a certain way. I hope to hear from you soon. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that theme has come up. Search for "bias" in the archive. 176.0.164.84 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There is an article on this topic which relates academic and public commentary. See Ideological bias on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey, you perhaps didn't notice that @Interstellarity has already cited that article. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Interstellarity, bear in mind that political "left/centre/right" are subjective perceptions, unless everyone agrees to use a particular scheme that has measurable parameters. They are also culturally specific, and their meanings in one country rarely exactly correspond to their meanings in another: this makes assessing the 'lean' in a global encyclopaedia rather problematic. "Centres" also shift over time – see Overton window and Left–right political spectrum.

For example, as I am British and you are (I will presume) American, my perceived political "centre" will probably be a good deal leftward of your "centre". I would consider my position in a British context to be mildly left of centre on some (more social and environmental) issues and mildly right on other (more economic) issues: you would probably consider me fairly left-wing from your point of view, and I would probably (given your query) consider you fairly right wing. How then can we agree on "bias in Wikipedia"?

It may well be that the Left-right political spectrum model is oversimplified, outdated and inadequate. Others are available, see Political spectrum. Two axes models are generally more insightful, and I suspect one with three axes would be even better. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I will confirm that I am an American. There doesn't appear to be any way to ping you, but I'm sure you watch this page a lot. I've been trying to educate myself on this issue and I read your comments. It appears that determining any type of bias on Wikipedia is difficult since the political systems in each country are different from one another. I was reading Donald Trump's article on Wikipedia and I thought to myself that the article is biased against him just by reading the article, but I have learned that Wikipedia gets its facts from the sources which is usually mainstream media that is critical of him. That's probably why I thought Wikipedia had a left-leaning bias. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"American" is not actually the same thing as "Citizen of the U.S.A.," by the way.

There are 35 states in America;

Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Suriname, Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, USA, Canada, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominca, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica

Anyone from any of these states is an American.

Anyone who reads and writes in English , around the entire world, can create a wikipedia account.

In most of these countries, "left" and "right" don't mean anything. Even in Europe, they have different meanings than they do in the USA. Guylaen (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we biased against him or does he just do and say a lot of horrible things? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I like your answer a lot sir. If I may add: If you leave the Western world, other country's parties and "left/right" can be totally different. For example, in America, a "liberal/leftist" may be very pro-immigration etc., whereas in Turkiye the "liberal/leftist" parties are vehemently anti-immigration and very pro-"Turkish" and desire to see "Turkish" language and culture supersede all others in the country. Whereas the Islamists and "conservatives" AKA muhafaza parties are actually pro-immigration, pro-diversity, and pro-multicultural and multi-lingual (actually this is a typical norm among Islamists in many countries, because Islam itself denounces racism and promotes multiculturalism in its sources and from the sirah nabawiyah). So on that note, I find the English Wikipedia to be quite lacking in diversity of thought! It needs more Islamic views. DivineReality (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't wanna be that guy. But Wikipedia calls national socialism "far right" to make right-wingers look bad, or at least that's what I think. Flying disc 1 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be expected to exclude relevant factual information on þe basis þat it makes certain people or groups "look bad". Þat would be an egregious example of bias. GenderBiohazard (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism is, objectively, a far-right movement. No bias there. Drdr150 (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

National Socialism/Nazism is, objectively, a far-right movement. There's no ulterior motive behind calling a spade a spade, or in this case, the far-right far-right. Beedlejoos (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh bugger, almost identical to the comment above. Beedlejoos (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4fdZu2vb_I&pp=ygUkd2VyZSB0aGUgbmF6aXMgZmFyIHJpZ2h0IG9yIGZhciBsZWZ0 Guylaen (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used for informative purposes. As users come to edit, they may change the facts and alter the article. Various factors may be included in their changes. Bias may be shown in their changes, highlighting different facts inside their edits. There possibly could be some excessively biased articles that show changes of users. Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good observation I saw a church rewriting a wiki post to be more in line with the tone of wikipedia and less biased and they blocked them and deleted the edits. It’s not even in the log, luckily I have copied it to show openminded people like you. IamNeutrality (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:COI. GenderBiohazard (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it not possible that The conservative people work while the left poor masses on welfare have lots of free time to spend on drugs, editing articles etc? Let’s gather the facts and see who is the majority of people with liberal free time for editing!

I don’t know yet only a guess! IamNeutrality (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

First, a church should not be editing Wikipedia as accounts represent individuals and plus, it was your sockpuppet account and it got blocked so I can see why it might upset you. I don't see how you can justify the edit it made though. But since you are blocked as well for being NOTHERE, I won't expect a response. By the way, I think I know a lot of editors on this platform after 11 years and they are neither on welfare or on drugs. Random assumption on your point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out before me Fact's have a left leaning bias, it's like the comic that's gone around of the rich guy with a mountain of cookies making two other guys fight over the 1 between them, right wing policies favour the few and as such require lies so right-wing politics are just less factual. Galdrack (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you're here, and allowed to ask this question, means that it doesn't have any bias other than to the truth.

When you are confronted with an article that presents information that is contrary to your worldview, please take a moment to wonder if your worldview is incorrect. In writing my series of articles on Cuba, as a citizen of the U.S.A., I have had to confront my worldview almost daily.

What I've formulated going forward is the notion that history and reality are neither conservative, nor liberal, neither right, nor left - but COMPLICATED. This is a complex ball of wax. Facts are stubborn things. Guylaen (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In the united states, facts have a liberal bias because conservative media will push any lie they want to get more money. We recently got two back-to-back hurricanes and a certain politician said that all the emergency aid is going to immigrants, and that caused a literal armed militia in tennessee to confront FEMA workers (Associated Press link, no paywall) because conservative media (especially alternative or low quality sources) picked up on the story and spread it. Unfortunately the U.S. has no standards for bias and accuracy in journalism and it shows given that MSNBC and FOX are some of the top "news" sources in the country. Politicians and influencers sow distrust and hatred towards "the other side" and easily manipulated and unintelligent people fall for it. I say that facts have a liberal bias because if you tally up all the lies sources from both sides of the aisle say, an overwhelming amount of them will be from conservative outlets. ApteryxRainWing (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming that many of the sources that Wikipedia cites, mostly mainstream media, seem to have a left-leaning bias

Most mainstream media outlets have a liberal bias, broadly construed, somewhat closer to the classical, non-USAian sense of the term, not a leftist bias per se. As for Wikipedia policy, sources with an illiberal bias are typically regarded as generally unreliable, deprecated, or blacklisted, whether they have socialist (e.g. WP:TELESUR), communist (WP:GLOBALTIMES), reactionary/extreme traditionalist (WP:BREITBART, WP:QUILLETTE) standpoints, or simply have views favorable to states regarded as illiberal by the reliable sources (WP:ADLPIA, WP:DAILYSABAH, WP:GLOBALTIMES, WP:OCB, WP:PRESSTV, WP:RT.COM). This understanding of Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and innate ideological biases is much more parsimonious and has greater predictive and explanatory power than assuming it is biased towards liberalism and against conservativism in the narrow, largely modern, largely American sense. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me invite you to reading any page about islam that isn't a top priority for the Islam:Portal wikiproject....

And then let me invite you to the American commentary by Roy Casagranda (youtube, amazing story teller), Chris Hedges and the Jewish Commentary on Islam by Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, ilan Pappe, and Gabor Matte, which paints a world different world.

Islam on english wiki is unrecognisable and divorced from actual history and lived Muslim experience. Edward Said addresses this in one of his biggest books "Orientalism", 1978. Since, there has been mounting academic self-reflection that addresses and acknowledges a systemic pattern and multiple century old history unique to western discourse to smear not only non-europeans, but MENA, muslims, and islam.

For example, the byzantine empire called itself romans but european revisionism changed its historic label to an inaccurate and non-relevant name of byzantium to divorce anatolians from the white european identity. Bro The Man (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Krugman has observed, "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias." Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not leftist. I'm a neoliberal and do just fine here. But to fill in the details, see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8 tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't the first time the observation was made: Stephen Colbert notably said reality has a liberal bias at the at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I lean towards the left but I am not a true believer in any activist group although I agree with their goals but not their methods and I know I am probably going to get banned , muted, ostracized , or put on some kind of list for this but some articles such as Gamergate (harassment campaign) show a clear political bias towards progressive politics with political jargon and snarl words , making it very clear from its tone that activists wrote the article , and regularly police it to ensure that it is not altered to have a more NPOV tone. And finally to make it clear for the record I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any activist group Washusama (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's one of the most corrupted pages on all of Wikipedia, IMHO.

As for the general topic, albeit still tangentially related, I'd like to quote another discussion in response to a new user concerned that everything within the Reception section of the page on conservative site DailyWire was criticism and that there wasn't even any coverage of their growth or popularity:

I don't particularly like DW but you're right. The problem is that the list of "reliable sources" (known as WP:RS) doesn't include conservative or right-leaning sources that would be willing to discuss a site like DW in a positive light, or seemingly even in a plain factual light regarding their growth and popularity.

WP:RS is the main means of controlling the discourse and editing process on WP to ensure it stays biased in favour of whatever viewpoint predominates among WP editors (which, for almost all of its existence, has been a sort of default progressivism). WP:RS is (and always has been) regularly culled to keep pace with the Overton window, whereby increasingly gentle right-leaning sources are hacked off until there's nothing left.

I'm aware of several pages on Wikipedia that illustrate that it doesn't matter what standard of proof you have - you can have direct evidence of a group colluding to engage in wrongdoing in a private chat and firsthand admissions from the participants - because WP will simply remove the sources that refer to that proof from the list, thus making them uncitable and offering those with power over WP:RS policy complete control over the worldview that WP reflects. It doesn't matter even if a pool of experts in a peer-reviewed study from a WP:RS journal declare that the only news source reporting accurately on their field is conservative/right-wing (which has literally happened before) because that source will never be added to WP:RS, even for the very subject (intelligence research) in which it trounced every single source of highest preference on the Approved™ list (which were all judged with negative-to-very-negative scores).

The idea that WP is neutral is laughable. It's highly debatable whether it's possible to have a truly neutral encyclopaedia -- but that gets into deep epistemology far outside the scope of the discussion. Frankly, in my own research, I don't consider WP any more intrinsically reliable than ProleWiki (communist), Conservapedia (neoconservative), or Metapedia (dissident) -- at least those sites make their ideology clear up front. In my own quest for knowledge, I treat WP as "Wikipedia (progressive)" in a mere longlist of summarising sources.

I tend to agree with Robert Conquest and John O'Sullivan: "All organizations that are not [explicitly] right-wing will over time become left-wing." Certainly, this is what happened to WP. A similar point has been repeatedly raised alongside solid examples by WP's co-founder, Larry Sanger, who has composed a trilogy of articles on the subject of WP's bias. Perhaps most valuably, they expound upon the closest practicable approximation to a "neutral" or "objective" encyclopaedia (those words, which we oft-interchangeably associate with honesty and integrity, all mean subtly different things and have been exploited and manipulated). Needless to say, his isn't WP's model, despite him drafting the original, obsoleted NPOV policy.

Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse thread notification bot is back

Hello. I received approval for the bot's task. In short: due to some technical difficulties I was unable to use Muninnbot's account. So I had to use my own KiranBOT account. I have sent out the notifications of the recent archival, here is an example diff. Kindly let me know if something should be changed, like the edit summary, or the main message, or some other thing. courtesy ping @Rotideypoc41352: —usernamekiran (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding a star for the people below! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks good to me! We'll see how it goes. Thank you:

• Usernamekiran, for all your hard work
• Sdkb, who started the original Bot inoperable thread that led to resumption of these notifs
• and everyone else who helped at that thread.

Also, I tried to update the Munninbot userpage. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention: similar to Muninnbot, KiranBOT will not send notification in case the thread/section title is updated after creation. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have a rudimentary logic to resolve this issue. But given the upcoming Diwali festival, I will be busy in office as well as personal life. I will work on the issue as soon as I get free time, which might be after 10 November. In case anyone wants to stay updated, I recommend watchlisting User:KiranBOT/Teabot, where I will post the documentation once the issue is taken care of. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I’m not new to Wikipedia, but I have a question. Currently, I’m the only active editor for the Myanmar project, as Myanmar has banned all versions of Wikipedia. I’ve created many articles without issues since I fully understand the notability guidelines. However, problems arose when I submitted one of my articles to the DYK process. An editor tagged {{Religious text primary}} on Pabhāvatī, even though there are secondary sources. The editor didn’t explain what they needed or try to resolve the issue with me, and they ignored the references I provided.

As a native, if someone clarified the reason for the tag, I could easily address it. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in explaining or resolving the issue; they only seem to be causing problems. Wikipedia is a community where things can be resolved collaboratively. What is the community’s stance on such inappropriate behavior? Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hteiktinhein: the tag was added by AirshipJungleman29. If anyone can explain why he added the tag, he can. Maproom (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hteiktinhein I now see that you sent this helpful message at WT:DYK; however, please note that adding pings without a signature, as you did there, does not work. You have said that the sources provide significant coverage and an explanation of the epic: if you could include the explanation in the article, rather than the narrative description currently found there, then the tag can be removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hteiktinhein. Your article says in Wikipedia's voice that Pabhāvatī possessed unparalleled beauty in the world, with rays of light as if from the risen sun, so profound that it could illuminate seven chambers without the need for any lamp light without qualifications. You are discussing a mythical or legendary person as if she actually existed, which is ludicrous. Also, she seems to be a character in in a religious work called the Kusa Jātaka that has no English Wikipedia article. It is as if you wrote an article about a character in a novel without writing the article about the novel first. The entire article is written from a Fictional universe perspective, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. WP:INUNIVERSE is the section of the Manual of Style that gives guidance for how to write about such topics. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 your answer is really helpful to me, and I’ll give it a try. I really appreciate receiving such helpful answers from other editors. I'm glad you provided a clear explanation. Thanks! Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Thank you. This is exactly the kind of clear answer I was looking for—finally, I got it.! Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That link is broken – I think you meant {{religious text primary}}. (I'm using the handy {{template link}} to link to it.) jlwoodwa (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing Wiki updating of user contributions

After a gap of several months since my last editing, I made a number of edits about 12 hours ago. Yet they’re not shown at my user page. I don’t recall such time gaps before — or am I wrong and it takes much longer? Augnablik (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I see edits made a couple of days ago, e.g. this one. (Are these really "grammatical"? I'd call them "orthographic".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If it was in fact a couple of days ago rather than last night, my question about how long it takes to update our number of edits would be even more relevant.

Yes, I’d call those edits grammatical … Augnablik (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Augnablik. The only circumstance I can think of where an edit you have made does not appear in your contributions list is if the article you edited has since been deleted. Is that possible? ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, I see one recent contribution at Commons, which is not tracked at English Wikipedia. Your xtools reports show zero deleted edits both here and at Commons. Your global contribs show only those two projects. Are you certain you were logged in when you made the edits? Folly Mox (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

OP removed this thread after the first three posts (restored next diff by 31.96, who added their reply), so this is probably  Done somehow. As far as I'm aware, edit count updates immediately at both Special:Contributions and Special:Impact, and is unaffected by REPLAG. Folly Mox (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I found the solution to the problem I was having, so I'll be happy if his thread is archived now. Thanks to all who helped by writing messages. Augnablik (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Where to report problematic pages

Hi, I'm a fairly new editor and have been helping out at the Task Center, which means I've been seeing a lot more random pages than I used to. What should I do when I come across a page which is clearly problematic (such as Shane Marshall or Badjiri language). Is there somewhere I can report pages like these so an admin can put a maintenance tag on them? Blackballnz (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz: Thanks for pitching in! You should be able to tag articles yourself, unless they are protected. If they are stubs, like Badjiri language, it can be helpful to sort them into one or two stub categories to help interested editors find and perhaps expand them. For other maintenance issues, browse the Template index to find the most appropriate tags. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz, a useful resource may be WP:TMV - it has lots and lots of tags you can use to draw attention to issues. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

list of blacklisted websites

where can i find a list of all sites that are blacklisted for using as referances on wikipidia YisroelB501 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources provide the information that you're after, YisroelB501? (Note that there cannot be an exhaustive list of websites unsuitable for citing, as new examples of such websites can and do emerge at any time.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

how do I use that link you gave me. I hate navigating through wikipidia help articles. I want a list of some sort that I can search in a website and it will come up if its blocked. YisroelB501 (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You can search the above page. You might also be interested in m:Spam blacklist. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

tysm @Shantavira| YisroelB501 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Who am I?

I sometimes edit Wikipedia on a tablet using the Wikipedia app, mostly as an IP. The app offers no visible way to log in, and if I use Special:userlogin it appears to make no difference. How can I tell "who I am" without making a nothing-edit somewhere, which I don't want to do? 194.223.39.3 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest skipping the app and instead using your browser, and (unless perhaps it's an unusually tiny tablet) going to the foot of any Wikipedia article and there opting for desktop mode. -- Hoary (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the app is great for reading, not so great for editing IMO(though many do edit successfully with it) 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The app is more readable on my device and is good enough for the small edits I do. I would still like to know some quick way of finding out if I have succeeded in logging in, ie: who I currently am (in the app). Isn't there some keyin? 194.223.39.3 (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Or something that goes to "my" Talk page, without having to know who "my" is? 194.223.39.3 (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple apps. The official Wikipedia app for iOS has a user icon at the top right. If you are logged in it shows the username. If you are not logged in it gives a login option. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Special:MyTalk does exactly that – everyone who clicks on that link gets sent to their own talk page. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Android app on my tablet does not have those icons or links. But thanks, jlwoodwa, for the keyin which is just the sort of solution that I was hoping for. Unfortunately, Special:MyTalk fails in the app (just like Special:userlogin), but using this as a suggestion and keying in Special:my offers the dropdown Special:MyPage/sandbox (the ONLY "my" option) which also can't actually go to my (non-existent) sandbox, but it DOES tell me whose sandbox it can't go to. So that answers my question. Thanks everyone. 194.223.39.3 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Time zone stamping

Which time zone are our Wiki edits and messages stamped with? Augnablik (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, (i) post a message somewhere, signing it with four consecutive "~"; (ii) note the time stamped on the message; (iii) note the time that your computer or phone gives you; (iv) examine File:World_Time_Zones_Map.svg and figure it out. -- Hoary (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

or read the abbreviation in parentheses in the timestamp! 176.0.159.0 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, really? Never thought of that! -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

— Okay, @Hoary, I'm testing out your idea here, writing a message to see what time is stamped on it. "Testing, testing" ... "this is only a test" ... Augnablik (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

— Seems to be London time. Augnablik (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

— Incidentally, I used timeanddate.com to look up the time zone, as I occasionally do to set up Zoom meetings. Since I could have done that experiment without asking the question that I did, I guess I was a little lazy — but I was doing something else at the same time the question came to mind and I figured someone knowledgeable would quickly swoop in with the answer. Augnablik (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik You can set your time zone preference at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you, @Shantavira. Augnablik (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

By default Wikipedia, being a global encyclopaedia, uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which is "London time" when the UK is not using British Summer Time.

I believe it's possible to change a setting to show your local time instead, but I've no idea how as I've never wanted to do so. [Aaand Shantavira told you how while I was typing!] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you too for replying, @Tesleemah — if that’s your correct Wiki handle. That’s what came up for you instead of 94.6.86.81. Augnablik (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Tesleemah is my username but I'm not 94.6.86.81 Tesleemah (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Augnablik, I'm on a dynamic IP (not by choice) which is currently 94.6.86.81: doubtless Tesleemah may have had it previously, and likely someone else will next week; that's why I use the identifier you see in curly brackets. (And yes, I know I could create a User account, but for the last 20-odd years I have chosen not to.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The default time zone is (UTC) Tesleemah (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik: English is global so the English Wikipedia uses UTC but a wiki can change it with mw:Manual:$wgLocaltimezone. Many other Wikipedia languages use the time zone of the main area where the language is spoken. The time zone of Wikimedia wikis is set with wgLocaltimezone in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. enwiki is not listed since we use the Wikimedia default UTC. A MediaWiki setting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering can change the displayed time in log entries like page histories and user contributions. It doesn't affect time stamps in signatures which just become part of the normal page content when the edit is saved. The English Wikipedia has made a gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". It runs JavaScript in your browser to change the time after the page has loaded. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Timezones are a little complicated across the breadth of Wikimedia installations. According to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Timezone, each wikimedia instance can establish its own timezone default. Still looking for documentation of the English Wikipedia default setting (documentation vs. inference from observation). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: I'm not sure what you would accept as documentation. The actual setting of the time zone is in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. It says 'wgLocaltimezone' => [ 'default' => 'UTC', and then sets another value for many wikis but not enwiki. The first time zone option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering says "Use wiki default (UTC)". Help:Log#Using a log says: "The date and time of the logged action. The time is UTC by default on Wikipedia; registered users can change this in their preferences." It's an unprotected page so anybody could change it but it may be a hetter fit to "documentation" than other options. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is perfect. Thanks. The UTC timestamp is based on the absence of the EN wikipedia in the custom/local list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

LaTasha Barnes article--DYK

I wrote a hook for the LaTasha Barnes article that was rejected, and I'd like to try again. I'm not sure how to submit again. I tried a new entry but it didn't save, since apparently I'm supposed to go back to my original page. How do I find that submission and try again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTasha_Barnes Wroliver (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wroliver, when I looked through the list of your contributions, I quickly found Template:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes. -- Hoary (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If Template:Did you know nominations/LaTasha Barnes is still open when you get there, you can comment to ask if you can have more time to work on it. Courtesy pinging @Sdkb, so they know @Wroliver's question on the latter's user talk has been answered here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Could I please have another day to submit an improved hook for the LaTasha Barnes article?

Wroliver (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wroliver, you need to comment at the link Hoary and I provided above. If I may be blunt, commenting here at the Teahouse is useless. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks--good to know! Wroliver (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Hey all - I'm trying to create a new wiki page with a portmaneau that doesn't exist and I keep getting flagged because I don't have references. I've tried to reference the roots of the portmaneau, but there are literally no references to the word itself, because I just made it up, so I feel I'm going in circles with the reviewers. Any help would be appreciated. I'm working with Theroadislong - hopefully we figure this out. Goobysnack (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Goobysnack, the major points you'lll need to be aware of are that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is not for things made up one day either. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Goobysnack. Unfortunately, if the concept hasn't been written about in reliable, published sources, then it's not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia because it fails our notability requirements. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know we couldn't add new words like portmanteaus. Okey dokey. Goobysnack (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Goobysnack The proper thing to do when your draft has been Rejected is to ask that it be deleted. Put Db-author at the top, inside double curly brackets {{ }}. David notMD (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Want to create a small essay; what should I do?

I've read WP:Essays, but I'm unsure where to start. Do I make a draft, make it on my userpage or something else?

hi (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@NotABlanker: I think making a subpage of your userpage makes the most sense. You can look at Category:User essays to see how other editors have done it. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Request help and feedback

Hey there,

I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Started to write an article about an old good friend of mine, with whom I studied at university and then worked together for a long time in investments.

I recently bumped into him in Singapore. We had a pleasant conversation about the past, and he mentioned what he's been up to (electronics, relocating to Singapore etc.). I looked him up online and saw that he even has a Hungarian Wikipedia page (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szab%C3%B3_Barnab%C3%A1s_Gy%C3%B6rgy_(k%C3%B6zgazd%C3%A1sz)) so, I thought I’d create an English page for him, as I’m currently learning journalism as a hobby, and I’ve never edited a Wiki page before.

Unfortunately, several of my attempts have failed and were rejected (Draft:Barnabas Szabo). Could you help me by perhaps editing it so that the article becomes visible?

Also, I’m looking for a way to reproduce the "info box" (with the photo and some key data) from the Hungarian entry in the English article.

Please help a disappointed beginner!

Thank you, Financer01 (Joseph) Financer01 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined not as severe and effort-ending as Rejected. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You can add the infobox using the WP:template {{infobox person}}. Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources(even on Wikipedia), so I recommend removing them. (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source). In addition, I recommend declaring your conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Financer01, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia.

You probably won't want to hear this, but: My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

And having a possible conflict of interest makes it even harder. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking a edit I made

I wanted to ask if an edit to the blast furnace I made was formated correctly and was good. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You cited the source correctly, but it looks like you copied text from Britannica with only slight changes to the text. This is close paraphrasing, which is a copyright violation. You should use your own words when adding information to Wikipedia, instead of copying text from other sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

selling citations by pqasb.pqarchiver.com

Neve Campbell & no:Neve Campbell

https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/516065561.html?dids=516065561:516065561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+29%2C+2003&author=Robert+Kahn.+STAFF+WRITER&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=Love+Matches+Up+2+Tennis+Couples&pqatl=google

https://web.archive.org/web/20121106160927/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/newsday/access/516065561.html?dids=516065561:516065561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+29,+2003&author=Robert+Kahn.+STAFF+WRITER&pub=Newsday+(Combined+editions)&desc=Love+Matches+Up+2+Tennis+Couples&pqatl=google

https://web.archive.org/web/20070311071417/http://www.joonbug.com/Images/press/articles/newsday-12-29-03.htm

I see many of these

69.181.17.113 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Neve Campbell has a severe case of WP:CITEKILL, and I'm not going to plough through 196 citations to see which of them you are talking about (or to see which of them are worth keeping, for that matter). ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing another language

Hello, I have successfully edited a few pages in German and in English, however it seems to be more complicated if I want to edit something in Turkish. Would you mind helping me out? Is it because I’m still seen as a newbie in the Turkish version? I noticed a lot of information was missing in the Turkish version but one article I edited is still under review for a week now. If anyone has some knowledge about this or experience and would love to share it with me that would be great, thank you so much. Presse8 (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Presse8, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that it's unlikely anybody here can help you with the Turkish Wikipedia. Each language version is an entirely separate project, with its own rules, policies, procedures, and administrators.

You might be able to get some help at tr:VP:DM. ColinFine (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editorial error re Pacific Saury, fish

RE:Pacific saury

I'm hoping an editor will take the following item in hand.

In the section on Japanese consumption of sanma (saury) it is stated that in the Kii Peninsula region of Japan" the fish is known as "saira." I have lived on the Kii Peninsula for 35 years and I have never heard sanma referred to as saira. I am an avid fish eater, preparing and eating locally caught fish, including sanma in season, two or three times a week. The area in which I live is Kumano Nada, the Kumano Coast, residing in Kumano City in the middle of that coast. My close acquaintance with place and people extends all along the Pacific Coast of Mie Prefecture from Kii Nagashima in Kihokuchou lying to the northeast of here to Shingu City just over into Wakayama Prefecture and as far inland as the Kitayama Region of southern Nara Prefecture. I travel often as far as Kushimoto and Shio-no-Misaki and Ooshima at the southern tip of the peninsula. Perhaps the name saira is used along the Wakayama coast between Shio-no-Misaki and Wakayama City. But it is wrong to ascribe use of the name to the entire peninsula. In these parts it's sanma. 113.20.212.87 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. That includes you! In the article in question, that assertion is not verified by a reliable source, which means it may be challenged and removed at any time and by anyone as unverified. Now, don't replace that with another unreferenced fact based upon personal knowledge of yours—any other assertion of what it's called there should, too, be supported by a good source, and if such a source is unavailable, the article just shouldn't say anything about it at all. But if you run across an unreferenced fact, and you think it's dubious or inaccurate, you may challenge and remove it. So, go do that! (You should probably leave an edit summary stating something like "Removing unsourced material" so that no one mistakes your removal for vandalism; explaining any removal of material in the edit summary is always a good practice.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Done! It wasn't referenced, so I didn't have to worry about someone challenging! Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Source date, current Version or original Uploda

If i have a source ex.[1] And i want to cite it. Which source-date should i use, the most current one or when the article was originally published?

Thank you. Synonimany (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I suppose, you should use the most current date, for the source might not have been the same, by which I mean that newer information might have been added since when it was published, thus I say this. I'd also like to let you know that this is only what I think, and the others might say something else. Thank you, wishing you a wonderful day. Happy editing! Oleeveeya (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Synonimany, and welcome to the Teahouse.

A citation consists of information which will allow a reader (or reviewer) to judge the likely value of a source, and, if required, to obtain a copy: things like title, author, date, publisher, journal/magazine/series, page. If a legal online version happens to be available, then it is good practice to link to it, but (unless it is a purely online source) that is not a core part of the citation.

Most articles, once published, remain unchanged, and so it is the original date which you should cite, even if your convenience link is to a much later copy. If you have reason to think that the content changed over time, you should cite the copy you have seen (SAYWHEREYOUREADIT), and you may want to add a note if its publishing history might confuse or mislead a reader. ColinFine (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Article titling when the subject has made a name change

I'm editing the article on French singer Sarasara, and I have two questions.

The first: Sarasara is what I see referred to as the "stage name" for Sarah Filleurs. Is there any Wiki guidance on whether the title of an article on someone known by two different names should show both a birth name and a stage name (in parentheses)?

Augnablik (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:STAGENAME. Lectonar (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:STAGENAME, someone with a stage name is generally referred to throughout the article by that name. So, then, the title of the article, Sarasara, is correct without further additions. Thank you, @Lectonar. Augnablik (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

How to suggest an editorial need within an article

Also in the Sarasara article, I'd like to point out an editorial need for something to be done but I've never done that before. I'd like to find out how. Here's why:

The version of the article I've been working on keeps switching the way it refers to the singer. Sometimes it's Sarah, other times Sarasara. This has gone on long enough in the discussion of the singer's life that I think her two names must be used out of sequence to refer to her. But then too, readers would be curious why and when she made the name change.

I'd have added this information myself, but I spent about 15 minutes doing a search to find this information and turned up nothing directly related. Unwilling to spend more time on this project in an already busy day, I thought to suggest the need for that information to be added, hoping another editor — perhaps the original writer — would pick up on it.

Please, then, would someone knowledgeable dispense the "how-to's"? In so doing, you'll probably help some other editors who may wonder how to do the same thing.

Augnablik (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You could post and ask on the article talk-page, but as we are all volunteers, it's not sure when, or if, someone will pick this up or react on it. Most articles remain in a state of being unfinished in one way or the other. Lectonar (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I’m sure I’ve seen this done within articles too — sort of like those ubiquitous “Citation needed” notices. Augnablik (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm...Template:Clarify, or perhaps even better Template:Explain, but there's oodles of others. Lectonar (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

She should't be referred to as "Sarah": we don't refer to article subjects by their first names. She should be either "Filleur" or "Sarasara", depending on whether the context is her as a person or as a performer. ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I seem to have forgotten about no first-naming in Wiki articles. But the distinction you make between her as a person and her as a performer is a little tricky except as far as before or after she made the name change — which at the moment we don’t know. Augnablik (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, we would ordinarily use the most common name that the sources use. So if you skim through the citations in the article, are people discussing Sarasara or Filleur? That should tell you which name to use for her. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime, the singer is referred to as BOTH Sarah and Sarasara in the article with no consistent pattern of usage that I can determine. Filleur, however, is never used to refer to her. Augnablik (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik What's important is not what the article currently says but what the sources say. If they never use the name "Filleur" then you have a relatively easy task to convert most of the Sarahs to Sarasara, per MOS:SURNAME. The Wikipedia editors have a search-and-replace function, which may help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik, as Mike Turnbull says, the citations in the article (the sources) are our guide. Just looking at the titles of the sources, if a name is used then it's 'Sarasara' - or frequently stylized 's a r a s a r a' - so we should use Sarasara as her name in the article, but mention the stylized version and ensure we have a redirect from both 's a r a s a r a' and 'Sarah Filleur' for any readers looking for her with those names. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Turnbull, I’d like to hear more about your comment that there’s a search-and-replace function for Wiki work. That would definitely help.

In fact, I’d already wondered if there were such a tool for exactly that purpose, as I’m now convinced it would be perfectly fine to change all the Sarah references to Sarasara in this article. But (confession time), I got thinking that because I’m now a toddler rather than a complete newbie, I should know where to go to check for that sort of thing — and I myself would get a little exasperated with someone who “should know by now.” So, I held back asking for help even though I just can’t recall (if I ever did know). Augnablik (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Augnablik Your ping didn't work for some reason, so I'm a bit late back here. I'll take this to your Talk Page as the search-and-replace functionality is worth discussing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Help me get my first article get accepted!

Hi experienced ediotors, pls help me understand this situation! I can’t understand!

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:GNG - noting Wikis are not acceptable or reliable sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Melon Sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nanb500001 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Just what are you asking for/about here, Nanb500001? In the meantime, please note that for people who don't understand certain key terms (e.g. "reliable sources"), links are provided from those terms to explanations. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Nanb500001, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.

I'm afraid that your experience is common for people who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning about Wikipedia. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..

If you had never built anything before, and you tried to build a house, do you think that you would even understand that feedback that you got when you tried at that level? ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I already did some edits to other and my account is a few weeks old Nanb500001 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We understand that, but it may even take months, weeks if you were getting in-depth.

My suggestion is if you still want to make the article, make it a sandbox and work on it for a long time. Adding things as you go along, then ask an unrelated older editor to look at it and give you feedback. If they think it is good summit it.

The point is that it could take months to get the article ready for resubmitting. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I give experienced editors my example article? Nanb500001 (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just talk to one on they're talk page with a link to the Sandbox/Draft. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nanb500001 (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I’m a starter editor. I understand what a reliable source is but the game I write on my article does not have an official website. The only way I can get references is through user generated content like a fandom wiki article. How can I get a reliable source without an official website. Nanb500001 (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You can't "get a reliable source" as you are describing. Reliable sources have to take note of the game on their own and decide to write about it. If you influence a source to write about the game, it is not an independent source that can be used to establish notability. If you don't have appropriate sources for the game, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. A Fandom wiki is probably a better forum in which to write about the game. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Well it have an official youtube channel Nanb500001 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's meaningless in terms of notability, I'm afraid. You need independent reliable sources. I'm sorry to say that if you don't have appropriate sources to summarize that no amount of editing can confer notability on the game. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

So can I have an official youtube channel as a source? Nanb500001 (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus there is only an official website of the peoples who made it https://playducky.com Nanb500001 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we're telling you these things aren't appropriate to establish notability. It doesn't look like the game merits a Wikipedia article. Again, a Fandom wiki is likely a better place to write about it, as it will likely have less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Both the Youtube channel and the website would be made by the Dev of the game.

They are not Independent of the Game, Devs, and those who work for them.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nanb500001: It sounds like it's too soon for this game to have an article if there aren't sources that fit the golden rule to establish wikinotability. If it gains traction you might have some luck in managing to create an article in the future. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How to remove the Expand Section box

I've responded to the Expand Section box under the Cast section of Escape from Germany (2024 film). I feel the request has been adequately completed, so how do I remove the box? This is specific to VisualEditor. Skidney1969 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that in the visual editor, but I was so bold and removed the expand-section template. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Lectonar! Skidney1969 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In the vidual editor, you can just click on a template and hit the delete key. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk to the public community's market Jah Rastafari haile

Welcome greetings 24.44.167.98 (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

De Selby - please don't remove this page!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Selby This page has a warning on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal I am not clever enough to edit Wikipedia pages, I am finding it a struggle to figure out how to write this here, but really want to appeal to you not to remove the above page, for the following reasons:

1) This character, de Selby, is of importance to readers of Robert Anton Wilson(RAW), and without this page those (like me) who want to find out his origins will be unable to do so. 2) There are "quotes" from the fictional book "Golden Hours" in RAW's book "The Widow's Son" which are seriously worth thinking about:

   a. "An expert is an idiot who has found people more ignorant than himself and knows how to bewitch them."
   b. "Government is organized violence, a fact which all know when they wish to turn its guns on their enemies and that all regret when its guns are turned against themselves. The only sane attitudes toward this contraption (sane in the sense of consistent) are those of the sadomasochist, who enjoys the violence whether the target be others or himself, and the anarchist, who rejects it entirely on moral grounds."

And many more. It is useful for the reader to be aware of this character's origins in Flann O'Brian's "The Third Policeman", in which he is (quoting from the Wikipedia article) " a savant who theorizes, among other things, that the earth is actually shaped like a sausage."

Another quote from "The Widow's Son": "He was pushed to the front of the line, and somebody said near his ear, "'The first shall be last and the last first.'" This is followed by a footnote: "A text often cited by de Selby in defence of his strange doctrine of plenumary time."

RAW also has satirical theories of de Selby's, such as "the accumulation in the atmosphere of teratological molecules" - a sort of forerunner of the kinds of conspiracy theories which are prevalent today.

it may seem that the comic nature of these references implies a certain shallowness about RAW's book, but this could not be further from the truth. RAW hides profound truths and other stuff in his writings.

Rather than remove this page, maybe someone could include RAW's development of this character as an eccentric and inventive author, of dubious character and great verbosity. Sheenabetts (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the issue isn't really due to lack of character development but a lack of secondary sources., as the maintenance template states. The article needs reliable secondary sources (books, news/magazine articles, journals, etc) independent of the subject that cover the subject in detail. An example could be a literary criticism textbook discussing the character... that's just one example. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. Does this help? It suggests how the character came about:

http://www.conankennedy.com/images/EXTRACTS/De%20Selby.pdf

Or there is this quote from a lengthier section in this scholarly article:

https://parishreview.openlibhums.org/article/3118/galley/3566/view/

"Rather than establishing stable and coherent points of reference, these

footnoted citations repeatedly sabotage the terms of this critical debate by challenging

the authenticity and sincerity of almost all texts canonical to the de Selby archive:

‘Hatchjaw has put forward the suggestion that the entire Atlas is spurious and the

work of “another hand,” raising issues of no less piquancy than those of the Bacon-

Shakespeare controversy.’"

This quote is from a Master's thesis, and I'm not sure if that counts:

" In the narrator’s pursuit of the study of de Selby

he steals, murders, spends his savings, loses his leg, reads thousands of pages of de Selby

and his commentators, learns French and German, lives an unhappy life with Divney for

years only to be blown up before he can publish his book. But other than the originality

of de Selby’s thoughts, the reader is left to question why there is such devotion among his

acolytes."

https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1144&context=etd (page 36) Sheenabetts (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no deletion tag or warning on the article – maintenance templates are flags that tell other editors about weaknesses that need to be adressed, and if an article languishes for too long with a "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" template, it can eventually be nominated for deletion. However, de Selby is definitely notable (judging by a quick source check) and I'll add some references and other content to the article so the template can be deleted. It was de Selby, wasn't it, who argued that all diseases originate in the teeth? --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Lowercase Sigmabot III help

Hi guys. A while back I assisted another editor in setting up auto archiving at their talk page. However, the archiver bot keeps missing the top two entries. I fixed the date sigs as best I could according to the bot documentation but it still is ignoring them. Does anyone know what is wrong there? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Iggy pop goes the weasel. The archive instructions say algo = old(360d) and minthreadstoarchive = 3. There are currently only 2 threads older than 360 days so no archiving is allowed by the instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, but if you view the history it was archiving things much newer than those two entries. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That was when it was archiving threads that are older than 7 days, Smallchief changed it to 360 days right after. – 2804:F1...88:7F3B (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Got it and thank you. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If an existing article title needs to be slightly modified?

There is a stub article Point Foundation (environment) that needs to be changed to POINT Foundation (environment). This is due to the fact that the Point Foundation always capitalized the letters in the forst portion of their name. This's noticeable in the usage in the numerous publications published by the Foundation, and also in how board members wrote the name when referring to the organization's activities, etc.

I've referenced the Foundation in a draft article I've been working on, and using the proper form of POINT will not wikify. I had to use the improper form "Point". Help, I don't know how to modify an article title. Thanks.Joel Russ (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joel Russ Do you mean that you tried to WP:MOVE it, but that didn't work? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. No, I didn't know that option. But I will try it amd, that works, then I've learned somethng new.Joel Russ (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it did work, so thanks once again.Joel Russ (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, per WP:MOSTM we should follow standard capitalisation rules in article titles, and ignore what trademark owners etc. might prefer. So this should be 'Point Foundation' in the title (unless POINT is an acronym, of course?). In the lead section the stylised version can then be mentioned. Happy to be proven wrong, though! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLETM it seems to be the usual COMMONNAME reasoning that applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Help regarding a Draft

Hello, I have created a draft article on Draft:Ankit Baiyanpuria but I am not seeing the option to submit it for Articles for Creation (AfC) review. Could someone guide me on how to enable or access the AfC submission option? Thank you! AstuteFlicker (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added the necessary template now. Use {{subst:AfC draft}} if you have this issue in the future. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by an Administrator. "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" David notMD (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

How to report users?

I have experienced an uncalled for argument where I feel I have been treated with disrespect by a fellow Wikipedian. How and to whom can I report the incident? I am not seeking any disciplinary action; a warning would suffice. Benzekre (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Benzekre. That's really not how Wikipedia works. Chronic, intractable behaviour problems can be reported at WP:ANI, but generally editors are expected to work to resolve differences themselves.

I'm guessing this is about the exchange at User talk:TylerBurden? Yes, TylerBurden could have been more polite, but they were pointing you (indirectly) at Q4 of the FAQ at the top of Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Honestly, if you're going to get upset about that level of disrespect, you may have a hard time interacting at Wikipedia. I suggest you just move on to something else. ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Yes, he could have been more polite; especially to a newcomer like me. I know it wasn't a terrible incident; that is why I am not seeking any bans or disciplinary action. Benzekre (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre Take a look at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and see if you think that applies to your situation. Note that if you proceed with reporting to a noticeboard, your conduct is very likely to be under scrutiny as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In the first instance, you should address them directly on their talk page. If that doesn't produce a satisfactory outcome then WP:RUCD has further suggestions. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Benzekre, you are simply not allowed to engage in any substantive discussion or debate about articles pertaining to the war between Russia and Ukraine anywhere on Wikipedia, and that includes that user's talk page. You must wait until you have made 500 productive edits in other topic areas. So, please drop this because you are otherwise at high risk of being blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cullen328. Since I am a newcomer, I am not sure I understand your point. While I know that the war between Russian and Ukraine is a sensitive topic; not even on the talk page of the war, am I not allowed to debate this? If that is the case, there are many users who are discussing it on the talk page in question. Lastly, since I am a newcomer, please forgive any mistakes done from my end. Benzekre (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Benzekre, please carefully read the warnings at the top of Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine, especially the statement However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. You are not allowed to debate this topic anywhere on Wikipedia until your account becomes extended confirmed. Being a newcomer is not a defense because it is a restriction specifically applied to newcomers. Please drop this so that you don't get blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The notice on the article talk page is confusing. It says "Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages." But then later in the same paragraph says "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages." So which is it? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests and "internal project discussions" are not the same thing. A pre-extended-confirmed editor can make edit requests but not participate in things like RfCs, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming, then what Cullen328 was telling Benzerke was mistaken. @Benzekre: what you were doing by initiating discussion on the article talk page was completely in line with the editing policy. Please be careful and work slowly in this topic area as it is highly political and controversial. Feel free to make constructive suggestions on the article talk page and engage in discussion there. I suggest keeping discussion there rather than carrying it to individual user talk pages. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel Thanks for letting me know. I will make sure to follow your advice. Benzekre (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No, @Benzekre, please don't - you were given appropriate advice the first time. @Iggy pop goes the weasel, if you look at the context on that talk page, you will clearly see that this is an ongoing content debate. -- asilvering (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering now i'm totally confused..... I will now follow your advice. I strongly suggest that this anomaly is clarified for better understanding. Benzekre (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre, see how the person below you on the talk page used that edit request template? That's how non-extended-confirmed editors are supposed to suggest changes to the article. In this case, the specific topic of North Korean soldiers in the war is being discussed further up on the page, so you don't have to worry about this one - other editors are already aware and are talking it out. For now, I suggest that you keep doing the kinds of useful and non-contentious edits you've been doing for a while. You'll become extended confirmed soon enough like that, and you won't run the risk of being blocked from editing. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think my confusion lies with the original response "you are simply not allowed to engage in any substantive discussion or debate about articles pertaining to the war between Russia and Ukraine anywhere on Wikipedia", which is not correct. The template doesn't say that. Helpful advice is one thing, but that sentence didn't sound like advice to me. Regardless, thanks for the additional information that helps clear this up for new editors and even myself. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I edit this Wikipedia?

The admincabal ruling the Hungarian Wikipedia permabanned me, they provoked me with vulgar and offensive texts to violate some guidline, then they used it as a casus belli to permaban me without real chance to resolve this. HuWiki ArbCom is suspended (probably never will be restored) so there is no control over the admin decisions. The real reason of my banning was probably I was an advocate for deadmination of a user who generated personal conflicts, used uncivilised language and once edited the Wiki on the pressure of a government agency and also was an advocate on restoring ArbCom. Hope this Wikipedia is really the free encyclopedia and the Hungarian cabal are not able to globally block me. Hörgő (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hörgő Afaik, yes, you can edit en-WP. However, we have rules like WP:CIVIL, WP:EW and WP:BLP, including a number of WP:Contentious topics. You can get blocked here too, so try to avoid that happening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You would have to be seriously disruptive to earn a global block. There's nothing preventing you from editing constructively on any wiki which hasn't already blocked you. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hörgő, a global ban is only applied when an editor is involved in cross-wiki abuse *and* is already blocked at multiple Wikipedias. You can safely ignore the Hungarian admins and just edit here in peace; they cannot do anything to you here, nor can they global ban you. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Plant/Fungus names in Articles

Hello,

I would like to know what the policy is on plant/fungi names in article. Should one only use the scientific name, throughout the article, or should one alternate between the common names and scientific name? When mentioning other species in the same article, should one stick to their scientific names or their common ones?

Thank you

~~~ Зэгс ус (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Зэгс ус, as far as I know, there is no consistent policy. The general principle seems to be that if a commonly discussed species has a common name that is widely accepted and used among most variations of English, then the common name should prevail. Wheat is an example of this. Lesser known species that are not the subject of everyday discussion are usually titled to their scientific names. Urtica dioica is an example because this plant is discussed far less in casual, unscientific discourse than wheat, and it has at least five common names. An intermediate and controversial example is maize which is called "corn" by the majority of native English speakers who live in the United States, but that word corn means something else in many other English speaking counties. So, the often challenged consensus is that "maize" is better than "corn" even though 335 million Americans and many of their Canadian and Australian friends call it "corn". For the truly obscure species, the scientific "genus-species" formulation is almost universally accepted for titles, although common names should be stated in the first sentence or two. So, when in doubt, engage in discussion to reach consensus, instead of trying to force your preferred terminology through. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As for fungi, consider our article Chanterelle which describes a culinary mushroom concept enshrined in French cuisine, as well as four genera of somewhat related mushrooms, each of which also has its own article. And the article about the best known (as far as I know) genera Craterellus links to articles about three distinct species of that genera. The answer is that there are no easy answers, and that such decisions must be made by good editorial judgment informed by knowledge of the topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! It has cleared some things up for me, and I have decided to stick to the scientific name in the article I'm writing, as it is not the most well-known fungus.

~~~ Зэгс ус (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Help in sources

I'm trying to make my first Wikipedia page. The only problem here, is that the only sources that I know that have this person information (age, country, name), is on the list of Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The sources are from fandom wiki. The person that I want to make a page is Gooseworx. I tried to get some sources from different sites that do not are on the list, but the informations are literally the same and these other sites have even less information. TheunnamedBR (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

TheunnamedBR, what you write suggests that this person is not notable. An article about a non-notable person cannot be created. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ok ;) TheunnamedBR (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @TheunnamedBR My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation please

My new article Carol A. Carter is similar in name to Carol Ann Carter, would appreciate help. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This article appears to have only two independent sources, and has quite a few MoS issues (“brought with her a trick”, references in headings, etc). I would not have accepted this at AfC, and considering it was only published a few days ago, I wonder if it should be draftified? 02:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1, what you're looking for is Template:For. Use this at the top of each page so that they link to each other. -- asilvering (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Man Mandir Palace

Hello, I have created a page on a historic monument. But it was declined. Can anyone help me finding the reason for deletion and improvisation. Thanks Donchocolate (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Donchocolate. Your submission was blank. It had no content whatsoever. Why would you think that a content-free submission would be accepted? Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well I was researching on the topic and at the same time was thinking to add the content. Donchocolate (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Donchocolate This is why we have WP:DRAFT and WP:Article wizard. See also WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Draft Submission for the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab

Draft:Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, India

I recently submitted my first article about the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, India, but it was not accepted due to concerns over notability under WP:ORG guidelines. While similar articles on Wikipedia feature limited citations, I believe this Department warrants recognition on the platform.

As a key government agency under the Government of Punjab, established in 1977, third-party online sources are understandably scarce. However, the Department’s impact is clear through its associated institutions, such as I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University, and the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training—all of which have Wikipedia pages. VeritasVanguard (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @VeritasVanguard,

Please disregard whatever other articles there may exist on Wikipedia; that is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. This draft will need to demonstrate notability and generally make its case on its own merits.

As you may have seen in the WP:ORG notability guideline (and I quote), "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is". The ORG guideline requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Your draft cites only primary sources, in most cases ones close to the subject (ie. not independent).

I would think that for an institution which has been in existence for nearly half a century there must be something published that meets the ORG criteria? Note that sources do not have to be online, nor do they have to be in the English language, as long as they otherwise meet our required reliability etc. standards.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Can any other admin review?

I recently submitted an article about the Department of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab, but it was rejected under WP:ORG guidelines for notability concerns. Despite its role as a key government body (est. 1977) and connections to notable institutions like I.K. Gujral Punjab Technical University, limited third-party sources make it challenging to meet the criteria. Any guidance on addressing these concerns or re-evaluation from another perspective would be appreciated. Thank you.

— VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @VeritasVanguard. If there are not adequate independent published sources, then the department does not meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible, period. See No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @ColinFine Thanks for your response. Given the limited availability of independent, reliable sources about the Department, I’ll hold off on resubmitting the article for now. I appreciate your guidance and feedback! VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If a draft has no edits for five months a notice is sent to the active editor that it will be deleted at the end of the sixth month. Edits to the draft reset the clock. David notMD (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording of sentence

I was editing Deva Premal due to peacock terms being used within the article. I came across the following sentence in the first paragraph of the Music and information section: She says that, for her, removing her ego from her understanding of the mantra allows the creative process to express the true meaning of the mantra.

The preceding is not a quotation yet it still reads - to me - somewhat awkward, and possible editorializing. Am I right in my suspicions? If so how would one go about re-writing the sentence? Bronzeman2342 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The reference is an interview. Is it a quote from the interview? David notMD (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading the interview, it's not a quotation, closest to it is "it's all about being sensitive to the actual meaning of the particular mantra, tuning into how it feels, and getting out the way on an egotistical level...once that happens, the music arises.". Bronzeman2342 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The sentence should be removed if not from the ref, bacause as written if begins 'She says that...'. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Likely a case of repeated information in the section, I'll attempt a rewrite without the 'She says that...' Regardless, thank you, for the attention. Bronzeman2342 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Did I Handle this correctly?

I came across an article that was originally about the "Andhra Pradesh State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training." However, it seems that over time, some editors changed the entire content to be about the "Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training" instead. I looked at Wikipedia:ORG and noted that neither of these organizations really seems to meet notability guidelines and neither of pages have sources other than primary.

So, I went ahead and marked the article with a deletion tag, thinking that might be the best course of action.

Here is the Page Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training.

Just wanted to check—does that seem like the right approach here? I’d appreciate any guidance or feedback on whether I handled this correctly, or if there’s something else I should consider doing. Thanks so much! VeritasVanguard (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The early versions of this article have all been RevDel-ed. I have failed to find out why or by whom. Evidence of notability is indeed lacking, so deletion seems the best solution, regardless of its strange history. Maproom (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard, I'm glad you asked. I don't think it's appropriate to tag these as WP:A7, which is why I haven't accepted the CSD requests. I think a more appropriate deletion method would have been WP:PROD. But I'm curious to see what another admin will do, so I've left the deletion tags on for now. -- asilvering (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I tag it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion because According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states

"applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"

& No Reliable Third Party Reference is cited in the article.

@DoubleGrazing Can you please look at this? VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why you tagged it, but I don't think that's correct. If the issue is a lack of reliable sources, that isn't a problem for WP:CSD. The notability claim here seems self-evident to me: it's a government body that oversees schools. Whether or not that is a notable topic, in the sense that it passes the guidelines listed at WP:GNG, is the question. But it was borderline enough to me that I left the tag on instead of removing it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering, Thanks for your reply, the Deletion tag has been changed to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. VeritasVanguard (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, but not changed by an admin, who could have done the deleting. Alas. -- asilvering (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Newbie seeking guidance: 'not enough content'

My proposed article has been turned down for not enough content, and the reviewer made a suggestion that would work (moving the content to a page about geography; but see the second point below):

– the subject is geology of an English county in which the geology is not very notable (but a lot of people live there) and in which major 'unconformities' are found (layers that either were never laid down in this county, or have since been eroded away)

– the page 'Geology of the English counties' includes this county among others for which articles would be liked (i.e. they're shown in red); while I don't kid myself that I'm the only person for the job, I do wonder how 'more content' could be added without explaining things that are well covered on other pages (I've included loads of links) or repeatedly saying things like 'no [period/rock type] strata have been found in [county name]' and

– I also think that others might be more inclined to improve an existing page than create a new one (i.e. that once a page is up it may develop and improve, but waiting for 'the right page' may be a long wait).

How do other contributors deal with subjects about which there is not much interesting to say? John C Firth (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@John C Firth, take that reviewer's advice! They're telling you how to get your content onto wikipedia right away, rather than having to wait a long time in the WP:AFC queue for your article to be approved. If it ends up that the "parent article" gets too big because of the kinds of additions you're making, then we can always spin it out (see WP:SPINOUT) into a separate article. Thanks for writing for Wikipedia! -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, asilvering. I'm going to sleep on it: while I'd love to see my words up on Wikipedia (so may well take the original reviewer's advice, and yours), it may be that tomorrow I'll see ways that I could add content to the article. (And sorry for not signing my first post properly.) John C Firth (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

John C Firth, in response to:

How do other contributors deal with subjects about which there is not much interesting to say?

they say something brief at a parent article topic instead. As far as avoiding

saying things like 'no [period/rock type] strata have been found in [county name]'

be careful: there are an infinite number of "negative facts" about any area, but you can only mention the ones that are mentioned in reliable sources. Maybe that county has no large concentration of lunar ejecta meteorites, but you cannot say that, unless some source does. Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Article creation

can any editir review my rejected article? Ibrahimmusa4 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ibrahimmusa4: Welcome to the Teahouse. You have already asked for help at the AfC help desk. Please don't post in multiple venues so that volunteer effort isn't duplicated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahimmusa4 Your sandbox draft User:Ibrahimmusa4/sandbox makes a statement that in non-Wikipedia publications about two people, some of those publications in error have images of the wrong person. This is not a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. It has been Rejected. Do not submit it again. Instead, deleted the content from your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Contributions acknowledgement

Hello Team, I started donating to Wikipedia recently. However, my profile does not reflect any contributions. How do I link my contributions with my profile page?  Smokinjoe1952 (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smokinjoe1952: Welcome to the Teahouse. Donations aren't tied to accounts or articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The contributions that you are seeing is for when you edit Wikipedia. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Smokinjoe1952: "Contributions" in the interface means edits to Wikipedia, not donations. Special:Contributions/Smokinjoe1952 now shows your question here. Your donations cannot be seen in your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies - all.

of course Smokinjoe1152 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

{ {Short description| blah blah } }

I do not know how to edit the {{Short description| blah blah example example} that appears near the very top of an article in source editor for every article, in visual editor? I really prefer using visual editor whenever possible, and I only switch over when I cannot figure out how to use the visual editor for something, though often I find the source editor less intuitive to use, at least I can eventually figure it out. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn, there's a gadget that makes this even easier than using Visual Editor. Preferences --> Gadgets --> check the box next to "shortdesc helper". -- asilvering (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I will look into that now. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a handy tool. Thank you @Asilvering. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Applying the instructions at Help:VisualEditor#Editing Templates, you would scroll up to the top of the page, click the greyed out "🧩 Short description", click the edit icon ✏️, change the text in the box that appears as appropriate, click the check mark ✅, and save your edit as usual. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not see that present until after adding the gadget that @Asilvering just recommended. I should be ok now. Thank you both. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome home

Can you please add welcome home by Ronald Dorelaine? 2605:59C8:2899:8F10:8D4C:E273:611:AF4B (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, could you be a bit clearer as to what you are referencing? We have nearly 7 million articles and it's hard to know which one you are talking about. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids discussing things from an in-universe POV, so this would be Clown Illustrations' horror ARG Welcome Home. You need an independent reliable secondary source to add it to an article, OP. Then you might be able to add it to the Welcome Home disambiguation page. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

First time making a page

I am trying to create a page for the playwright Leslie Kimbell. I have modeled my information after other playwrights that are published by the same publisher and have Wikipedia pages. I must be formatting wrong. Can someone help me? AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have been rejected six times AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there someone that I can send my information to that might perhaps know how to format it better...that could submit it for me? AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

AnnMitchell1964 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is about Draft:Leslie Kimbell. You have made an understandable- yet poor- decision to use another article as a model- an article that itself may be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. We call this other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways for inapprpriate content to exist on Wikipedia and go undetected- this can't justify the addition of more inappropriate content. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure to use one that is classified as a good article- these have received community vetting.

I might suggest that you read Referencing for Beginners to learn more about how to format references. You will need to show that this playwright meets the definition of a notable creative professional, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I not formatting properly? I don't understand what you mean. I read the information about referencing. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Your references are bunched at the end and some are bare urls. References need to be in-line next to the text that they are supporting(especially when writing about a living person). 331dot (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you I will work on that now AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that the names of children(especially minors) are not included in an article unless the children themselves merit articles. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @AnnMitchell1964, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that your experience is common for people who try to create a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to post this for someone who should have this page. Is there someone I can go to that can do this for me...I have all the information. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you in any way related to this person? (Family, friend, coworker, boss/employee) If you are then you may have a COI. Please read that page, also read the Terms of Use.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see Paid Editing.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again , @AnnMitchell1964. It sounds as if you have several wrong ideas about Wikipedia - as I said, this is commonly a problem for people who have not yet done much editing, and particularly for people who come to Wikipedia intent on creating a "page for" something or somebody in particular.

A Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject, except incidentally.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

If the information you have is citations to sources which meet 42, then you (or anybody) can create an article based on what those sources say. If most of the information you have is itself verifiable from such sources, you can use it - but you would be well-advised to forget what you know and write based only on those sources. Any information you have which is not verifiable from a reliable published source - and, preferably, a secondary source - is irrelevant to Wikipedia.

The question of whether somebody "should have a page" is moot because nobody "has a page" (I recognise that people do use that phrase, but I think it is worth being nit-picking to explain this). If Kimbell meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (either WP:NACTOR or the more general WP:GNG) then Wikipedia would like to have a neutral, well-sourced article about him. If not, then Wikipedia will not have an article about him.

And as for getting somebody to write an article for you: the approved method is to post the subject at RA, and in theory a volunteer editor will at some time pick up your suggestion. In practice, that is not likely to happen (though you can make it slightly more likely by citing several solid sources, as mentioned above). Otherwise you need to fall back on either trying to interest a volunteer editor in the project, or writing it yourself. I very strongly recommend you do not pay anybody to do so: while there are occasionally good-faith paid editors, those who tout for business are mostly scammers.

And finally, to repeat the advice I gave above: I suggest you put Kimbell aside for a few months, and learn about Wikipedia by improving existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Your Draft:Leslie Kimbell has been Declined three times (not Rejected, which is more severe, meaning stop trying). It is still an unacceptable mess for wrong formating (fixed) and wrong references (nmot fixed), and separate from that Leslie may not qualify for Wikipedia's concept of notability. There no "someone who should have this page." at Wikipedia. It is on you to either improve the draft or give up. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. I am not tech savvy enough to continue trying to do this. Leslie Kimbell seems to be notable as she has four top selling published works which began in New York and are now licensed with Concord Theatricals. Concord Theatricals is the most prestigious theatrical publishing company in the world. Her plays are performing across the world and selling out theatres and are currently playing or upcoming in over 40 theaters. I thought she was notable. Apparently not. Rather than helping, it seems you all more so enjoy picking people apart and making them feel ignorant. Thank you. AnnMitchell1964 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

AnnMitchell1964, I am sorry you are feeling that way, and I will try to help you learn what to do if you are still interested in developing this draft. The key thing to note here, is that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and just like Britannica or World Book or any encyclopedia would do, one has to decide as question #1 whether Ms. So-and-so deserves an article in the first place. This is called Notability at Wikipedia, and is not the same thing as the general sense of the English word, and someone selling out crowds world-wide might or might not be notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. (Click here to read about Notability.) If you decide you want to carry on, please follow the Notability link, then read Help:Your first article, then contact me on my Talk page by clicking the word 'talk' in my signature after this message, and leaving me a message there. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] AnnMitchell1964, I'm sorry you feel you have not been fairly treated, but in a vast, crowdsourced academic project (approaching 7 million articles) which tries to maintain high standards, procedures here have to be kept fairly strict, and because it is all supervised by (too few) volunteers, also have to be applied in a streamlined fashion. Many of the messages you have received have not been formulated specifically for you, but are selected from a menu of pre-composed responses.

It is quite possible that your subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense (please click through that link and read), but your Draft, to be accepted, has to demonstrate this with correctly formatted citations to Reliable sources so that readers can verify what has been written.

Being complex, and having been formulated by consensual evolution over years, Wikipedia's policies and conventions unfortunately have quite a sizeable learning curve: it's often recommended that newcomers spend weeks or months studying how it all works and making more minor copyedits, etc., before plunging in to try to create a new article, one of the most difficult things to achieve here. Wikipedia is not social media, so is not specifically designed to be as easy as possible to use, nor does it want articles on all subjects, no matter how obscure. (Many High School students try to post their 'autobiographies, and professional people their CVs, for example: that's not what Wikipedia is for.)

It's quite usual for Drafts to go through several rounds of Submission and Decline (meaning "not good enough yet, please improve" – 'Rejection' means "no prospect of being a suitable subject, please stop") before eventual acceptance. Drafts (such as yours) are only removed (unless by their creator's request, if no others have done much work on them) after six months of zero activity, so you are more than welcome to sit back, learn more about Wikipedia, and resume improving your Draft after a few months, and I hope you decide to do so. 94.6.86.81 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia Page of SBBS University

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University (''Page'')

This page on Sant Baba Bhag Singh University seems to lack a clear justification for its notability. The university, though occupying a sizable campus (while the page mentions 116 acres, the actual built area is 11.41 acres, is quite small and doesn't appear to have any significant achievements or contributions in academia, industry collaboration, or research, as noted by the NAAC report. The tone of the article also raises concerns, as it uses reverential language ("Sant Baba Dlawar Singh Ji (Brahm Ji)"), which feels out of place for an encyclopedia entry and suggests it may have been authored by someone affiliated with the institution, perhaps even a student or university official.

Anjuli Bhargava’s article, referenced here, is particularly critical of universities like this one, questioning “how and at whose behest” they spring up, acquiring vast lands with “no limit to how much reflective glass and chrome” can be used while academic rigor is suspect. Given these critiques, and the page's heavy promotional language and lack of meaningful citations, a more neutral, fact-verified rewrite (or maybe deletion) would be essential. VeritasVanguard (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: The college does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Majority of school and college articles from India fail to meet our notability guidelines, as they were previously presumed notable. However, following updates to guidelines such as WP:NSCHOOL, they no longer meet notability standards. I recommend redirecting these non-notable school, college, and university articles to relevant targets, such as their affiliated institutions. If there is disagreement or a challenge, then an AfD can be initiated. However, if we start bringing all of these to AfD, the backlog could become overwhelming. GrabUp - Talk 05:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp The institution on question is a private university. Laws governing the private universities in India do not allow them to affiliate institutions, such power is only given to State universities. I don't think that redirection is suitable for this non-notable university. I suggest this article be deleted, as no reliable sources exists for this article to be re-written. VeritasVanguard (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: Yes, I couldn’t see that this university is affiliated with any notable institution. If no appropriate target is found, then first consider using WP:PROD, and if challenged, proceed with AfD. GrabUp - Talk 05:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for Your reply, I have placed Wikipedia:PROD to its page, as no appropriate target was found. VeritasVanguard (talk) 06:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: Nice work! Consider placing a notification on the author’s talk page, as shown in the notification you added to the article. You can also use WP:TWINKLE in future nominations, which will automate this process. GrabUp - Talk 07:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@GrabUp My Wikipedia:PROD Tag was removed by an editor giving no explanation whatsoever, just said 'Recognized'. What should be done VeritasVanguard (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@VeritasVanguard: I asked them in the article’s talk page, lets see their reply, or you can start an AfD. GrabUp - Talk 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

VeritasVanguard, the bar for removing a PROD is very low, and although you can always ask, they do not have to answer, and you are prohibited from adding te PROD a second time. I would skip asking (what would it gain you?) and just take it to Afd. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the creation of Module:Sandbox/பொதுஉதவி

Please help me in creating a page Module:Sandbox/பொதுஉதவி பொதுஉதவி (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @பொதுஉதவி, and welcome to the Teahouse. I know almost nothing about Lua, but I see that WP:Lua#Request a script says Visit Wikipedia talk:Lua to request help in writing a Lua script to perform a specific task on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia Foundation project, so I suggest you follow that advice. I further suggest that you give some indication of what exactly you want the module to do, as it may help responders know how to answer you. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

2 titles

I am citing a book and I need to cite both titles to paragraphs and they are both on the same page (it would not at all make sense to have only one title), should I make 2 spereate citations, or should I make one? and if so how should I format it? YisroelB501 (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would follow what Cite Page and Help:Citation Templates says. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, YisroelB501. The vast majority of books only have one title, although the exception that comes to mind is Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. Occasionally, editions published in different countries or at different points in time will have different titles, but I suspect that is not what you are asking about. I am confused when you say titles to paragraphs. Chapters sometimes have titles but I am unaware that individual paragraphs ever do. So, please provide additional context or a more detailed explanation of what you are asking. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry I said the question wrong by "title" I meant to say quote. there are two quotes on the page one on the top and one on the bottom what should I do? sorry for the missunderstanding Cullen328. YisroelB501 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, direct quotations require a reference to the source. If both quotations appear on the same page of a book, then just use the same reference twice. See WP:NAMEDREF for the details of the coding. Follow those instructions carefully. A slight typographical error will mess things up. Cullen328 (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't Fandom Wikis a Sister project?

Because Fandom WIKIs 1numberblock (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Because the two were not started by the same Foundation. There are other "Wikis" out there that are not related at all. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 08:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Fandom (website). Fandom is a profit making business supported by advertising that has far lower editorial standards than Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which are non-profit educational ventures relying on donations. Their business model is incompatible with ours. Both use MediaWiki software, but so do many other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

A wiki is just a kind of collaboratively-edited website. Wikipedia isn't even the first wiki – that was WikiWikiWeb. What sets Wikipedia apart from other wikis is that it is an encyclopedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

About original research

In history, it's essential to avoid imposing our contemporary perceptions onto the past. Instead, we should understand historical events and figures within the context of their own time.

A lebanese identity didn't exist during the time of the saints of this category, and categorising them as Lebanese clearly violates wp:NOR. Calling someone like Saint Barbera Lebanese is like calling Paul the Apostle a Turkish saint just because he was born in what would become the Republic of Turkey almost two thousand years later.

The category for Turkish saints notes that it should be empty, most likely for the same reason I've mentioned above.

Therefore, I think the saints should be removed from the Lebanese category. (Right? Or am I missing something?) Since there don't seem to be reliable academic sources that call them Lebanese. Otherwise, it should be okey to categorise Saint Paul as a Turkish saint.

I'd like to hear what you think Whatsupkarren (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey didn't exist until 1920 or soon after. Turks arrived there in the 11th century, and Anatolia became known in western Europe as "Turchia" in the 12th century. I agree that it would be wrong to describe St. Paul as "Turkish" or "from Turkey".

The case of Lebanon is different. It didn't become any kind of political entity until 1920. But the region was known as "לְבָנוֹן" before the birth of Christ, and the Old Testament refers to its famous cedar trees. So it seems to me reasonable to describe a Christian saint as "from Lebanon". Maproom (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused

Why no one mentioned in articles about Google being fined by Russia with 2.5 decillion dollars? it's a large fine. I added the information about this from Google's article by the way. Bakhos2010 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 Wikipedia is created by volunteers like you. If you see something that needs fixing, feel free to fix it or propose it on the talk page. The matter of the "fine" is somewhat academic of course. A sum like that could never be paid. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 If you need a reliable source (and comment) see this BBC news article. The fine doubles every day it is not paid, apparently, which is why it is now so large. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

how to link cities that changed names?

I am writing an article and in it there is Leningrad, USSR in 1927. but Leningrad changed its name to St Petersburg. so would I write it like this "Leningrad, USSR (now St. Petersburg, Russia)" both Leningrad and St. Petersburg with redirect links (both of them redirect to the same page, they are the same city just with different names) or should I only put redirect links for one? YisroelB501 (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You should only use the same wikilink once. It would make sense to use it for the name that corresponds to the title of the article linked to, so "Leningrad, USSR (now St. Petersburg, Russia). Maproom (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @YisroelB501. This is a difficult area. WP:MPN may help. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How to see list of files?

I want to see (newly) uploaded files but I don't know where to find the page for it. It's not in Special:Upload too. Riod456 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Riod456, have you tried Special:ListFiles? --Habst (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, but thanks, now I can see list of files. Riod456 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I need help from someone who speaks Spanish

Hello. I need a little bit help. I cannot use google translate for this. There's a copy-paste problem. Could anyone add information to Egyptian goalscorer minutes and French goalscorer names and minutes with that source into this page? I think if anyone know Spanish, it'll take 10 minutes. I hope someone will help me.-- Sabri76'^talk 11:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sabri76: Click the red 'DESCARGAR PÁGINA EN PDF' link, then zoom in (click the plus sign) till you can read it, then re-type the part you are interested in into a note or text file, manually fix up any optical character recognition failures, and then paste that into Google translate. (DeepL is usually better.) If you still need help after that, please ask for help again with specifics of what is not working for you. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot: but your message isn't helpful. The problem is bigger than optical chrachter failure. When I scan a row, all rows are automatically scanned and when I paste it into the translation tool, three different columns in the same row come together and form a meaningless whole. This is example translation:

The area where he was already practically nothing in physical. Egypt -. it is the work with .tQcla tc*ly eUmlnado to ontçupe- One thing to praise about loeaegu?lda4 of the man who the . counter attacking play... Gauls this time. Knowing how to per1er eCUrite cje ¡a vo1utad and pc?det- of .lo. In these plays the extreme all correctness and deportvldad. And . ashxz1lation of !Os 3 ugadores -, lzquterd ‘Played’ 8iznbollcamen- only one thing to regret.

If no one helps me, I need to spend 2 hours because I have to write every word manually into the translation tool. There's no direct information. Complex and narrative language is used in the relevant section. I think the article (Egipto 6 - Francia 2) doesn't mention name of the goalscorers it alludes to the shirt number and the names of the goal scorers in the last three paragraphs, but I'm not sure is there an info about goal minutes.--Sabri76'^talk 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sabri76, I am aware that it picks up multiple columns if you select and copy, and that is why I wrote "retype" and not "copy and paste". Just type the letters you see into a text file from the area of the article you are interested in. Fix up the mistakes or your random guesses of what the bad OCR is supposed to be as best you can, and then try DeepL or Google translate, which can tolerate a low level of mistakes. If you don't get the results you expect, ask again. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Bug with notices

When I click on notices, there's a gray 4, which means I should have 4 notices, but it says there are no notifications.

Here's a screenshot of my issue.

BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@BombCraft8 That's a new problem to me but probably related to recent reports now at WP:VPT#Notices not working. Please post your image/details there. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

ok BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Policy on page protection if linked on main page?

Hi there! I've done a couple of things which I'm no questioning, mainly requesting the protection of Slime (monster) on the noticeboards, due to vandalism and it being linked on the Did You Know? Section on the main page. What is the policy for this? Did I do something incorrectly?

Sorry and thanks in advance, Realtent (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Realtent Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Slime_(monster) (will be archived fairly soon) you did fine, you asked in the right place, and you had reason, as in there was vandalism. The first protection will be short, often vandals get bored quickly, but if necessary, future protections can be longer. The policy is WP:PROTECTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Longest Edit-a-thon official Guinness World Record attempt on Wikipedia

Dear Administrators of Wikipedia, I am about to embark on a marathon editing on Wikipedia articles for 180 hours to break the current Guinness World Record Longest Edit-a-thon. The application has been approved by Guinness World Records and the attempt is to take place from November 2024. I'm using this to inform and take permission from the community if I'll be allowed to go ahead. The major thing I'll be doing is to help improve written articles on Wikipedia, and not to create. Please, I'd like to know if this would be approved by the community. I look forward to your kind response. Thank you very much. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as you're improving articles I don't think you need anyone's permission or approval to do this. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I needed to be sure I'm not violating Wikipedia's policies. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck! :) MemeGod _chat 16:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully you will not be making further edits like this one [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh... I didn't see that. Well, I hope they conform to the guidelines, nothing's stopping them from doing it. MemeGod _chat 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

and good to hear you won't be creating new articles, as all yours have been sent to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any value in "editing on Wikipedia articles for 180 hours" if you don't understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines, I fear it will not end well, we require good quality edits, not quantity. Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Danielehisaiguokhian Note that the Wikipedia guidelines for edit-a-thons imply that they involve multiple editors all working at one venue and that they be advertised in advance to the community. Is that what you propose? If not, then I doubt that your efforts will be accepted as any sort of record. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I propose. I was sent the guidelines and I decided to advertise it to the community to receive guidance. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually learning to improve on the platform, and with experienced editors like you helping to guide me, I believe I'll improve more and do better. Thank you so much. I'm learning to use the platform every day. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to have the understanding first before attempting your task. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Danielehisaiguokhian 180 hours worth of edits like these [3]], [4], [5], will be a nightmare for other editors to put right! Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I only asked a question to receive guidance. I think you're in a better position to help someone who is barely less than a year on this platform to get directions. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not perfect. I'm only trying to make a change in the most possible way I can. Someone like me needs someone like you to assist, and not to ridicule. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as you've been assisting others, you can assist me too. I'm open to learning. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Then I would strongly suggest you forget about the Edit-a-thon and get a few thousand edits under your belt first. Theroadislong (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestion. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth privacy concerns?

Hello, on this edit, a potential "office of privacy at MD Judiciary" user removed the date of birth and replaced with a year of birth (citing some MD law/statute) for Dale R. Cathell. The date of birth is cited from a Maryland legislature website. Is this information legally protected for a BLP? I know BLP has certain rules, but as far as I know, if the date of birth is cited by a formal source, it is appropriate to keep up? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This is probably better suited for the general Help Desk, but the username is inappropriate so I'm blocking. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally, I've observed that if an article subject requests their full date of birth to be trimmed down to a year of birth, we usually honor it per WP:DOB, regardless of the sourcing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It does depend on how publicly available the date is, but that's generally true. This isn't the article subjects requesting it, though, but the Maryland judiciary, citing Maryland law in doing so. In the case of Judge Cathell, the date is cited to the Maryland State Archives- so the right hand of Maryland government publishes it but the left hand wants it removed? I have advised Wikimedia Legal. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and doing the remediation here. I'll make sure to use Help Desk next time. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I did some digging and apparently Maryland passed a law October 1 that covers this. [6],[7]

I make no claim of legal knowledge about any of this and am not a lawyer, but there seems to be something to it. Sending it to Legal is the right choice. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If "sending" it to legal means a board or Talk page somewhere, can you link it, and if it means an email, can you follow up with a second one asking legal to respond either here, or perhaps better at an appropriate venue like WT:BLP, and link their response here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

How to use h-index for sociology

I'm evaluating the article Jennifer Pan. The subject of the article has an h-index of 27 according to Google Scholar. Is this high? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't go by h-index to deternine notability. It varies widely across fields. The current appearance of that article doesn't seem to satisfy any of the WP:NPROF criteria, though her book might. Reconrabbit 21:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the nomination at WP:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Pan (political scientist). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I also missed that her work was extenisvely cited. This is not obvious at all from the text of the article but it also points to the need to always check Wp:BEFORE when considering deletion. Reconrabbit 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Misspelling in URL/title: 8B0

Regarding Steven A. Bean Municipal Airport - Wikipedia

Correct spelling is "Stephen". This is reflected in the article content. I can't figure out how to edit the title. 198.160.5.13 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've taken care of the article name fix. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! 198.160.5.13 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I need help!

I accidentally annoyed a user named @Manifestation, this was not intended to be on purpose since it was about one user's gaffe discussion and now I need ask for forgiveness from him. How do I apologize to him? Please, help. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you didn't say anything that was the end of the world. You already apologized, you don't need to do anything more and it would probably just annoy them if you continue. Don't agonize over it, you did the right thing. win8x (talking | spying) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, you can tell @Manifestation about this. I have learned my mistakes and vowed to never do it again. I would still take a short break from Wikipedia. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Korean Public Alert Service

Expand it please Star Jaguar (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sure some editors are happy to help, but Teahouse isn't for asking editors for general improvement. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I need help I don’t get it

so I have multiple questions how do u make a good article a good article like or reassessment to make good article have ga tag do u to talk to admin or someone else or nomination a article to made good article or featured or dealte articles or bring articles that were delated I just need help I don’t get I don’t know who do this stuff Qubacubazamniauser (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Image license

Why can many Wikipedia pages such as Coat of arms of Edmonton, Coat of arms of Canada, Coat of arms of Calgary and more can use fair use coat of arms images but, the Coat of arms of Edson, Alberta can't do that? WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)